Printable View
I think the Ivey pistons come in standard and +.005.
From what I've read the slight additional power comes from a longer dwell time at TDC that allows for more complete burning of the mixture.
I figured it was the pin to piston top moment arm that was the overall issue.
I think you wrote it in '02 and every two to three years thereafter.
It's now official in the GCR. " Wiseco piston P/N WD-06526 with rings, pin, Crower connecting rod P/N SP93235B-4 (withbolts), but without bearings: Minimum permitted weight with bolts, no bearings: 555 grams." :thumbsup: Went to Crowers web site and checked their part no, rod length is 5.700. Checked Wiseco's part no. came up empty. Their search engine seems to need some work. GCR's part no. does not seem to be anywhere or maybe I'm not searching properly. So in reality this means the wrist pin is moved up in the piston .700 since the old rod length is 5.00. Anybody else have any luck with Wiseco's part no. search?
Dad ck with QS. They did some work with the new rules.
Not sure about the 555gr though--may be a misprint. Seems light for the piston/pin/rod assy...??
DK
In Google I tried this:Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTDAD
and got nothing. :-(Code:site:wiseco.com WD-06526
As I read this it's all standard bore - which is a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by holmberg
It's probably a custom part at this point. Let's hope there isn't an exclusive right to order.
The rods are available anywhere:
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/cro-sp93235b-4
The CRBSCCA to clarify the piston part no. situation. Informed them nothing came up on a Google search (Google knows everything) and went to Wiseco's web site and still came up empty. I'll post when I hear back. I suppose a person could call Quicksilver but the law of the land comes from the CRB so no money will be spent until one hears from the proper authorities.
A small additional amount of HP should come from the fact that the rod angle with respect to vertical is smaller with a longer rod, reducing piston side load and its resultant friction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
Has anyone found these GCR approved pistons ? I'm wanting to refresh my engine....
Thx for any info !
I think quicksilver did the build and test so they would know. They will be giving the part info to the crb.Quote:
Originally Posted by racerdad2
Talked to Erik at Quicksilver last week. The Wiseco piston is not a stock item from Wiseco, you need to call QS to order them.
QS did the work on their own dime to get the piston to work with engines from all of the different engine builders from over the years, to make that happen the piston had to be modified.
As I feared. They've granted yet another monopoly. :meatball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Johnson 42
Let me see if I understand the logic of your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
QS, out of it's own pocket, researched, developed and got approval of a solution that you've been advocating. That solution could not be done with a stock part, but you want to be able to bypass QS.
Seems to me, you should have developed this yourself, including getting SCCA approval, and then given it away out of the goodness of your heart if that's how you feel about things.
While I’m sure QS did some thinking, they certainly did not do it all on their own dime. I know at least one individual who ponied up real cash to get work performed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Johnson 42
It’s a step in the right direction, but allowing the .030 overbore would have given us an off the shelf part. Alternatively, SCCA could specify dimensions rather than a PN, which probably would have been more appropriate.
What he said...
Interesting to me how people with no knowledge of how much work behind the scenes of many individuals, and no knowledge of the expenditures, are assuming QS would do this for free as a development project.
I’m not demonizing QS, but neither am I in favor of their paid effort earning them a monopoly.
This may or may not be an issue, isn't it a concern only if there is the perception that the price is elevated to the point of gouging? Certainly whoever funded the development should be able to recoup the expense.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
If the parts are supplied in a timely manner and at a reasonable price, I agree. I agree that those who funded the project should get rewarded. So I know a couple people who should be getting royalties now, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by hdsporty1988
This is is something that I applaud QS for taking on, and I applaud further the individuals who took the risk to have experimental builds done that might have not made it through approval.
I call BS on QS funding it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
It's my understanding that a customer funded it. I heard about this "going to happen" months before.
They had been running a long rod engine for years and wanted to make it legal. Sure, QS lended it's influence and knowledge on how to test and report to the CRB. Maybe they funded that. But it was a customers engine and dyno time - you know - the expensive parts.
Why can't the rule be '5.7 in rods and pistons' with a weight specification? There are options out there.
QS has the monopoly on fuel injection for the Zetec. How did that happen? Who on the CRB allowed that to happen?
Is that the way it works? You can buy an exclusive right to sell?
In reality the GCR has become 'a loose guideline' for many racers and a curse to those following the rules.
The Zetecs are running methanol, modified maps, modified cams and blueprinted.
Many Pintos are illegal as well. I spoke with one racer that had been running a modified head, hot cam, and Weber 38 for years and he still couldn't keep pace with the Zetecs. He's driving a Zetec car now and suggested that all his Pinto mods were not enough.
And nobody is calling BS.
You are correct, but, how can you compare a 1 of a kind product.Quote:
Originally Posted by hdsporty1988
And that's my point. The CRB should not approve 1 of a kind options. My proposal to the CRB said any rod, any flat top piston with a minimum weight. THAT is how this should be specified.
There are at least 3 different 5.7 rod/piston suppliers out there. There are also 5.5 options.
Why do people think racing, SCCA Road Racing, is a large enough market for any product or service, that multiple vendors will create cheaper prices and better service?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
The CRB cartel strikes again!
To be clear - my only upset with this rule is the SCCA's manner of handling things. I honestly don't think QS or SCCA is doing anything nefarious. SCCA's typical "behind closed doors" committees and way of handing rules via PN instead of spec is what contributes to perceptions like this.
I imagine that there is an equivalent amount of shared responsibility to go around for why this happened. A number of us (BBR, me, and a bunch of others) have been very vocal about wanting to bring older cars 'up to speed'. We believe it will help the class attract new blood. More responsibility goes to the guys who spent the money to do the development builds, and even more responsibility goes to the guys with the capital and knowledge invested to create the parts. Not least of which, I imagine Wiseco has some engineering hours in their stuff, and QS probably has a good bit of dyno time and build time that isn't captured. Not to mention the knowledge value. Being in that my day job is in engineering at an OEM, there's almost always more sunk cost than we ever figure on our hip pocket sketches.
Personally, while SCCA has a tendency to handle things poorly, I see this as generally a very positive move for all of us, and I don't want to look the gift horse in the mouth too closely. It's a big step in the right direction, and a lot of good people worked hard for it, even if there are elements to gripe about.
That's exactly what I DON'T think. But the CRB is further restricting the market to what appears to be a bespoke set of pistons (probably an existing product trimmed down), driving up cost and eliminating vendors from the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
I'm not suggesting it'll get cheaper but nothing is cheaper than existing product on the shelf.
Then go and spend your own dime purchasing these existing pistons, have them assembled into a motor, dyno them, collate the information, and present it to the CRB for approval.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
IMHO the Frog deserves major kudos for campaigning for this change for many years ????
You do realize there are engines, legal engines, with decked blocks that can't use off the shelf pistons, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Because most of us Pinto guys are on a tight budget. Choose 1 - CRB approval or racing.Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
As I posted before, people are buying these products and using them. People are building cheaper illegal motors.
Even people with the funds don't want to spend money on the process.
As I explained in my letter to the CRB we need to change the process.
Everyone knew this long rod option would NOT have a major power influence.
But lots of time and money have been wasted on a process, not on racing - which is what we want to do.
Is there really anyone out there that thought these approved changes were going to yield killer Pintos?
We have a divide between what the racers want (changes) and what the CRB wants (a process).
Or is the unspoken truth that Zetec racers don't want the Pintos to catch up?
Every talks about improving the grid counts, but do they mean it?
"We want more racers but you have to double your budget."
Reminds me of a landmark case here in Santa Barbara. A hotelier was trying to get his project approved by the City and the City staff kept changing their mind on insignificant parts of the project. He became so tired of delays and cost of the process that he started a campaign and got his hotel project on the voters ballot. The ballot measure passed overwhelmingly. The people were tired of the delays. They wanted change. Council members lost their re-elections, board members got fired and the hotel was built as promised by the developer. The process was ultimately changed as well.
Just talked with Quicksilver. New pistons have been ordered. Expect them to be back in stock in 3 weeks. The new pistons are standard bore. Very reasonably priced.
Maybe you noticed that in that landmark case, the citizens took it upon themselves to get the hotel approved.
Please tell us just what you and the club membership have done to address this issue other than complain on this forum.
You mean do I understand the rebuild process? Shaving a piston so it doesn't exceed the deck height and raise compression?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
Yes.
And you do realize that engine builders find the rules they participate in writing vague and open to interpretation?
(aka the spec Miata plunge cut fiasco)
And when I hear that Zetecs are being rebuilt with MZR blocks because no good Z blocks are available it makes me wonder who's rules are these anyway? Do they apply to everyone? or just those that choose to comply.
IMO, we have to remember that the SCCA, as long as these are SCCA classes, have to provide fairly strict rules so that folks don't feel like they have to go out and buy the (name your part) of the day to run at the pointy end. That is what happens with anything, like tires, that are allowed to be relatively "free" from the rules. Of course, people do it anyway with tires, shocks, suspension designs, car designs, etc., which are not totally spec'd. It has historically been the aim of SCCA in formula classes to allow innovation, but to limit the engines much more strictly than almost anything else in order to make the playing field at least close to level.
The alternative is to allow non-spec'd engine parts which would make the engines even more unequal than they currently are. I think that's a really bad idea. There are already places to run out-of-spec engined cars. I think they should run in those classes, leaving the FC rules tightly controlled so that things don't get out of hand.
As an aside, I switched to the Zetec engine after 2007 because it had the prospect of all of them being more equal to each other than the Pinto's. After 1998 I found that unless you had one of the super-engines like Niki's, you struggled to run up front, and mine was good, but not "super." So I saw the handwriting on the wall, and switched.
Your blatant whataboutisms don't do your argument any favors. If there are illegal motors, protest them. Compliance is a shared responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
You complain about cost, but have you compared the cost of fully prepped QS sourced pistons with the cost of off the shelf fully prepped pistons?
Your willingness to shift the cost to those with otherwise legal engines so you can get something cheaper is another negative against your argument.
Clearly, you want what you want and the devil take the hindmost.
It took the developer to go an alternate path. Then the citizens had a way to expressed their opinions. Before that there was no way for the citizens to show their opinion except for appearances at City council meetings.Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
You're right. I need to help change the process.
I wrote a letter to the CRB last October. 9 pages. I focused on explaining why car counts where down and mentioned the Zetec and parity in 1 paragraph only. I campaigned other members to support my letter and IIR about 10 other people wrote letters expressing support for my proposals. I'd gladly share it.
The CRB response was 'looking at other options, taken care of' because this long-rod proposal was also made.
So they picked one.
The protest process costs money. Whether something illegal is found or not, you become that guy that no one likes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
If it's so important for someone to win that they cheat, that's on them. You and I will never solve that.\
That's the ultimate golden rule in racing.
Yes, compliance is a shared responsibility. You make sure you're in compliance, I'll make sure I'm in compliance.
Enforcement is not. Think of it like income tax. We all work within the same set of rules.
But how many people report tax cheats? How many report disability cheats? Or able bodied people with handicap placards?
I don't quite get what you're saying. The largest burden is on legal engine owners. I want to maintain a legal engine, but I want changes that allow use of existing products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
It's not the CRB's job to ensure compliance of the cars at the race. That's on the stewards, entrants, and other competitors. If you know other competitors are cheating and you don't do anything about it, you are part of the problem. The accusations about zetecs are so tired. I'm involved with one of the best zetec cars in the country, it doesn't have methanol, an MZR block, altered cams, and it isn't blueprinted or anything else that isn't in line with the GCR. If someone is doing those things, protest them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
And no, zetec guys aren't worried about having the pinto guys catch up. That's ridiculous. It's beyond imagination that horsepower accounts for the differences between the cars.
Dave has done an excellent job explaining why having an open engine class with just some spec rules is a terrible idea. It's been proven in plenty of classes. I don't know if it is true right now for FC, but it is true for other classes and has been the death of them.
Enforcement, including mechanical compliance, is most certainly a shared responsibility. Officials have much less information about your class than you do. If you are expecting an official to initiate a mechanical teardown on the basis of a complaint from another competitor you're quite mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Whether by protest or RFA, the bond must be posted. In the case of an RFA that's an expense of the organizing region. If you think someone is running an illegal engine you can enlist other competitors to help defray the cost. If you can't that would be an indication that your suspicions might be unfounded.
You also appear to be miffed that your CRB request wasn't adopted. You're only entitled to an answer, not automatic acquiescence. This is a club of many members with diverse experience. It isn't reasonable to expect agreement on a request just because you think it's the right way to go. Nor is it an example of black helicopters when you don't get what you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Did your letter you submitted contain any hard data that the CRB could consider, or just a laundry list of complaints and opinions? If no hard data for them to consider, it is no wonder that they picked one that had data.Quote:
I want to maintain a legal engine, but I want changes that allow use of existing products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Be careful about these myths about the zetec, they are not some super engine that makes everyone set track records and is only there to beat up on the Pinto guys. The reality is that they were a more modern engine that was a good alternative to the Pinto, it allows for longer cycles between rebuilds and doesn't shake the car apart during a race.
I have only ever seen them in 98 and up Vandiemens, current Citations, Mygales and Pipers. You are not going to find a 97 or older Vandiemen, especially a 95 Vandiemen that would even come close to keeping up with the current cars even if the current cars were running a pinto.
So please stop this Pinto vs Zetec argument. There are so many other factors that its a waste of time.
Brian
What Brian said. This thread is supposed to be about Pinto improvements, not another Ztec vs Pinto useless argument.
...about time to unsubscribe to this thread for me. It's back to the sos--pinto vs ztec
I am glad to see the pinto got some upgrades. Not everything I wanted (.030 over pistons) but...
Cheers
I know about all the factors and totally understand. I wasn't arguing Zetec V Pinto.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT1
My comments were about rule compliance.
My comments were about Zetec Racers and whether they even care about changes for Pintos.
My experience is they do not. And more often than not, being the ONLY Pinto in a group, I am the ugly step child.
"Why do you drive that old thing?" is a common question.
So, does this attitude permeate up to the CRB? Am I and other Pinto owners just bothering them? You?
You and Dave converted this into a parity argument - which is what I think they call deflection.
Which brings me around to the conclusion that you either don't care and just don't want to discuss it.
In my letter to the CRB I talk about every conversation and proposal labeled as a 'parity' argument.
In 9 pages this is my total discussion of the Zetec:
I want to get other drivers back on track.Quote:
These are my only comments about parity. In my efforts to get Pinto drivers out to race, I have heard it all. In
general many owners are still angry about the Zetec and the fact that since its introduction the average Zetec
has increased power as builders have honed their craft. When the Zetec was approved, it was under-developed
and compared to a fully-developed maxed-out Pinto. The spirit of the introduction of the Zetec was as an
alternative. Better life not more power. That wasn’t the result. The Zetec got better while the Pinto stayed the
same. The Zetec also changed the traffic pattern on track. Being a torquier engine, the Zetec exits corners
faster. While Pintos may have a top end advantage, that is only available on the longest of straights. When
you’ve been beaten at the start, and out of the corners, top end does not matter on the typical courses we race.
I want to improve my car.
I want to reduce running costs where I can.
I want to improve my driving.
I don't give a flying leap about the Zetec guys other than the fact that they significantly influence what happens in the class. They are the front of the horse and us Pinto guys are the back.
So instead of being dismissive and argumentative, help us figure our how to make these engines and this class better.
Or was my earlier conclusion accurate?
I'm miffed at the process. My letter contain comments about understanding they probably wouldn't adopt my suggestions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
And it was a suggestion of an improvement PROCESS not just 'let us use these parts'.
You've confirmed it's cheaper to be the cheater. Bad process.
No data (except for participation numbers and Zetec/Pinto mix), no complaints.Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
I explained that I wasn't going to be able to fund their 'usual way' and wasn't going to be able to get others to do it either.
Suggestions for an improvement process that would keep costs down. Every suggestion was to give more options for reducing operating costs and rebuild costs.
PM me your email and I'll send you a copy of the letter. You can then tell me why.
Not having seen your letter, I'm reluctant to accept your representation of it. It has been my experience that such letters fail to consider all aspects of the process, focusing only on those parts that support the request. Using dimensions and not part identifiers will only serve to create a situation that fulfills your accusation of rampant cheating because the bond required to verify will increase substantially.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
As for it being cheaper to cheat, If you're right you get the bond back. If you're not protesting someone you're convinced is cheating, you're contributing to the problem.
And when I hear that Zetecs are being rebuilt with MZR blocks because no good Z blocks are available it makes me wonder who's rules are these anyway? Do they apply to everyone? or just those that choose to comply.[/QUOTE]
That is some serious misinformation there.
My letter is still in the que waiting for answer an answer about the part no. Any idea what the part no. is? And are they available thru Wisceo or only thru Quicksilver.Quote:
Originally Posted by racerdad2
I bet that is a result of hearing that MZR-engined VD's are allowed in the FRP F2K series and somehow equating that fact to "using MZR blocks to rebuild Zetec engines."Quote:
Originally Posted by eospeed
Is that even possible? :confused:
If it is, it's being done w/o regard to legality, and certainly, IMO, not by anyone running at the pointy end in FC or running in the FRP series
The truth is, the Zetec engine was allowed in the FC class, running with the Pintos, in a form that did not allowQuote:
Originally Posted by BrianT1
"Blue-printing" or enhancement of it's output.
Or as SCCA put it, "The philosophy of the Zetec engine in FC is to allow limited engine rebuilds but no performance modifications to the engine"
An East Coast race series accepted the Blue-printed form of Zetec engine service a number of years ago, probably to save some engine builders who found their shops empty waiting the 3 years for those engines to return for service. Many of those "Blue-printed" engines with their increased power have made their way into SCCA racing. The SCCA rules still prohibit it and a number of other services being done to the Zetec, yet they do not bother to check, even at the Run-Offs.
There are those that like the Pinto and there are those that like the Zetec, but the truth is, unlike the early days when there was a good battle between both types, the Zetec engined cars have locked down the front of the grid.
Every time there is an engine change (like this for a Pinto), it seems to benefit an engine builder first and maybe a customer second.
Time will tell.
Guess I have to ask:
Just what are the illegal blueprinting modifications that are being done? And by which engine builders?
Paul -
I have re-read your letter; it was taken very seriously by the FSRAC and CRB when submitted as is every letter. I will be happy to discuss it in private with you if you like or you can call and discuss your concerns with any of the FSRAC or CRB; I will not reveal the contents thereof on a public forum as all letters and other documentation submitted to SCCA are treated as confidential.
Generally speaking the Club has to act in measured steps as once a rule is put into place it is difficult to pull it back if an error was made. It is a conservative process. The Pinto with the upgrades has the potential to be as good if not better than the Zetec. As far as QS supplying the pistons; this is not unique as the GCR is replete with specified parts. You or any other person can offer up a like piston to approval. I doubt you can do it for any less than this one is being offered, but you are certainly free to do so. Also, please keep in mind that FC is a formula class. Cars, engines, shocks, etc... are not guaranteed to remain competitive. Time and technology move on in the FC class albeit at a snails pace due to the maturity of the class and cars.
John